PALANCE & MARLEY

This matter came before Bennett J concerning an application by the father for an adjournment of proceedings related to the child, X. The dispute centred on interim time arrangements between the father and the child, with the court also considering the role of a Family Consultant and the verification of drug screen results.

The court was required to determine the appropriate interim orders for time between the father and the child, the necessity of cross-examination of the Family Consultant, and the process for verifying drug screen results. Additionally, the court had to consider the mother's application for costs and the father's obligations regarding his application for an adjournment.

Bennett J adjourned the matter for an interim defended hearing, suspending the child's entitlement to face-to-face time with the father pursuant to a 2018 order until further order. The court directed the father to file and serve a response to the mother's application, specifying the orders he sought and providing supporting affidavit material, including details of his legal representation. Directions were also given regarding notification for the cross-examination of the Family Consultant and the verification of drug screen results. The court reserved the mother's costs of the day, to be determined at the adjourned hearing, and ordered that particulars of the obligations and consequences of contravening the orders be set out in an attachment.